Hagerty "Four designs that were improved upon" article
- Thread starter Pete Kaczmarski
- Start date
rapidtrans
Senior Member
I may prefer the 58 Plymouth over the 57 however I believe the purpose of these annual changes was the "Planned Obsolescence" practice of the big 3 in those days.
Interesting article, thanks.
GJS
Senior Member
I don't agree with any of that for the Chrysler products. I see the 57 and 58 plymouths as different cars, same (and more so) with the 69 and 70 Plymouths ... I feel like 68 and 70 Dodge and Plymouth offerings were worlds apart those two years ... Chrysler and Imperial not quite as much but ..
The tempest I see as the exact opposite.
The Riv I agree with on a design level I just never liked how the hidden headlights functioned.
The tempest I see as the exact opposite.
The Riv I agree with on a design level I just never liked how the hidden headlights functioned.
In some respects, the "planned obsolescence" term has been demonized a bit by many over the years. In reality, it plays into the orientation of "continuous improvement", be it in styling facelifts or in mechanical areas. Without this reason to purchase a newer vehicle, there would have probably been fewer vehicle sales over the years, which would have very possisbly been a detriment to the nation's economy.
In general, I like the facelifts from the original designs of each of the vehicles mentioned. A bit more refinement, usually. Not having planned obsolescence of some degree would not have given many a reason to purchase a new vehicle every year (back when that was financially possible for some). Problem is that if the original design was popular and many buyers bit for it, then the "new and improved" second year version seemed to be forgotten (i.e., '55 Chevy vs. '56 Chevy), at a time when new vehicle trade cycles were typically in 2 year segments.
Nice article. Thanks for the link.
CBODY67
In general, I like the facelifts from the original designs of each of the vehicles mentioned. A bit more refinement, usually. Not having planned obsolescence of some degree would not have given many a reason to purchase a new vehicle every year (back when that was financially possible for some). Problem is that if the original design was popular and many buyers bit for it, then the "new and improved" second year version seemed to be forgotten (i.e., '55 Chevy vs. '56 Chevy), at a time when new vehicle trade cycles were typically in 2 year segments.
Nice article. Thanks for the link.
CBODY67
Similar threads
